Jolted by recent controversial remarks from High Court judges in sexual assault cases, the Supreme Court, helped by the National Judicial Academy (NJA) has taken a big step to train judges using a first-of-its-kind set of guidelines for their “sensitization” and prevent reckless comments in their judgments.
The Supreme Court had previously noted that these remarks amounted to “victim shaming” and reinforced “patriarchal stereotypes.”
NJA guidelines – which urges judges to adopt gender-sensitive, survivor-centric language and compassionate courtroom practices while dealing with sexual offence cases – were adopted by the Supreme Court and uploaded on its website.
NJA panel primarily said “avoid victim shaming, patriarchal stereotypes”.
The report titled ‘Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments’ lists a “set of problematic phrases” often used by judges and against it gives ‘neutral, legally’ appropriate alternatives. For example it says: Avoid usages like:
- “Body of a woman as playground” but say “violated bodily autonomy of complainant”
- Not “helpless woman” but “complainant”
- Not “outraged modesty” but “sexual assault”
- Not “lost her chastity” but “survivor’s bodily autonomy violated”
- Not “fueled by lust” but “sexual violence”
125 Judgements Analysed
The Committee prepared the recommendations after analysing 125 trial court judgments from across the country with the assistance of State judicial academies. It found a mixed picture concerning the sensitivity and approach of judges while dealing with victims, witnesses and vulnerable groups.
The committee said sensitive judicial language was not merely a matter of politeness but was essential to ensuring fairness, dignity and impartiality in adjudication.
It underscored that judges must avoid asking stereotypical or blaming questions and should not force victims to interact with accused persons.
It further flagged concerns that judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced “rape myths” and questioned victims’ credibility rather than focusing on the accused’s conduct.
“Such language can re-traumatize survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice… Court should have clear comprehensive polices and accessible support system. Also, promote awareness and education campaigns for public for reducing stigma and misconceptions about the victim. A strict prohibition on gendered and moral commentary,” the report added.
The SC bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has directed that the publication be uploaded on Supreme Court’s website, copies circulated to all High Courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies, union and state law departments, NALSA and state legal service authorities.
Directing so, CJI-led bench said, “judicial decisions must embody the values of compassion, humanity, and understanding, which are indispensable to the administration of a fair, responsive, and effective system of justice. It further emphasised that sustained institutional measures are necessary to inculcate and nurture a sensitive and victim centric approach amongst members of the judiciary, while ensuring that court procedures are similarly aligned to uphold the dignity and rights of those who come before the justice system.”
The Supreme Court Says
- Court deems it appropriate to take notice of a broader and systemic concern permeating various levels of the justice delivery system, namely, the need for judicial decisions in cases involving sexual offences to be informed not only by legal principle but also by sensitivity, compassion, and empathy.
- This concern assumes particular significance in matters involving vulnerable and/or minor victims and witnesses, whose engagement with the criminal justice process demands the highest degree of judicial care and sensitivity.
- In this backdrop, the Court observed that judicial decisions must embody the values of compassion, humanity, and understanding, which are indispensable to the administration of a fair, responsive, and effective system of justice. It further emphasised that sustained institutional measures are necessary to inculcate and nurture a sensitive and victim centric approach amongst members of the judiciary, while ensuring that court procedures are similarly aligned to uphold the dignity and rights of those who come before the justice system.
- This court, therefore, considered it necessary to formulate appropriate guidelines, informed by the views and recommendations of domain experts, while remaining mindful of the various measures and initiatives undertaken in the past to strengthen the administration of justice in cases involving vulnerable persons.
- We are accordingly fully satisfied that the publication merits acceptance. The same is approved and shall serve as a guiding resource for members of the judiciary, particularly while dealing with matters involving sexual offences and other cases concerning vulnerable persons.
- Its adoption will indeed promote greater consistency, clarity, and sensitivity in judicial discourse, while ensuring that the language and processes of the courts remain anchored in the values of dignity, compassion, and empathy.
The court further said, “We consider it necessary to clarify that the use of appropriate, inclusive, and sensitive language is an evolving exercise and cannot be regarded as having attained finality. As societal understanding continues to develop, so too must the language employed by courts in the discharge of their judicial functions.”
Supreme Court on Latest Case Where Judge’s Remark Were Insensitive
Further speaking on the matter, the CJI Bench said, “Before we conclude, it is necessary to address an issue that was brought to light during the proceedings. Shobha Gupta, a senior advocate, informed this Court that certain observations made by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, in its judgment in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 775/2013) are in direct contravention of the ratio and legal principles established in our prior order dated 10.02.2026. Consequently, the Registry is hereby instructed to seek guidance from the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative front, regarding whether it is necessary for this Court to register fresh suo motu proceedings in this matter.”
In this case, Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court controversially ruled that locking a woman in a room, pressing her chest, and trying to pull down her salwar did not legally constitute an “attempt to rape”.
A Look At Recent Comments From High Court Judges Which Forced SC To bring Guidelines To Sensitise Judges
JULY 14, 2026: Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna HC controversially ruled that locking a woman in a room, pressing her chest, and trying to pull down her salwar did not legally constitute an “attempt to rape”.
FEB 2025: Allahabad High Court’s Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra remarked that grabbing breasts, breaking pyjama string and dragging the victim would not come under the definition of rape or attempt to rape but only “aggravated sexual assault”. In this case, the Supreme Court had set aside the order and expunged the remarks, but despite that, similar comments made by Patna High Court.
AUG 2024: The Supreme Court had set aside a judgment of Calcutta High Court of Justices Chitta Ranjan Dash and Partha Sarathi Sen which made several comments criticising adolescent sexuality. Among other things, it observed that ‘female adolescents’ had a duty to control their ‘sexual urges’ as otherwise they will. High Court had acquitted an accused in a POCSO case. The High Court had remarked that “every female adolescent needs to control sexual urge as in the eyes of the society she is the looser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes”.
SEP 2024: A five-judge special bench led by CJI had taken up suo motu hearing pertaining to objectionable, controversial remarks made by a Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Shrishananda against a woman lawyer and also calling an area in Bangalore city as Pakistan for poor law & order situation. He was forced to apologise.
NOV 2021: A woman judge Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala of the Bombay High Court was not confirmed, from an additional judge to permanent. In a judgment, while acquitting a person in a POCSO offence, she had held that pressing of breasts of a minor girl without disrobing does not amount to “sexual assault” within the meaning of section 8 of POCSO act. The Supreme Court had taken serious note of those remarks following which she (the judge) resigned from judicial service.